State v. Zottnick
796 N.W.2d 666
| N.D. | 2011Background
- Zottnick was convicted by a jury of violating an order prohibiting contact with Katie Abt.
- The state charged violation of an order prohibiting contact under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-31.2-02 based on alleged contact between Nov. 1–3, 2009.
- An October 19, 2009 order prohibited direct or indirect contact and stated Abt’s consent did not invalidate the order; Zottnick signed service of the order.
- Evidence included Abt’s testimony of calls, emails, texts from Nov. 1–3, 2009, a Nov. 2 visit, text/email messages, and phone records.
- Zottnick sought a jury instruction on excuse under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-05-08; the district court refused, and the jury found him guilty.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether excuse instruction was required | Zottnick’s conduct was excusable since Abt initiated contact | No applicable excuse under ch. 12.1-05; no necessity or justification shown | No; district court properly refused the instruction |
| Whether evidence supports conviction | Sufficient evidence of direct contact violated the order | Evidence insufficient to prove elements beyond reasonable doubt | Yes; competent evidence supports conviction |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Leidholm, 334 N.W.2d 811 (N.D.1983) (distinguishes justification vs. excuse; explains defense framework)
- State v. Ness, 2009 ND 182, 774 N.W.2d 254 (N.D.2009) (entitled to an excuse instruction if evidence shows it could apply under ch. 12.1-05)
- State v. Fridley, 335 N.W.2d 785 (N.D.1983) (excuse not applicable to strict-liability offenses; similar reasoning for limitations of excuse)
- State v. Ronne, 458 N.W.2d 294 (N.D.1990) (requires accompanying justification or other evidence for excuse)
- State v. Nygaard, 447 N.W.2d 267 (N.D.1989) (no excuse when no recognized purpose under ch. 12.1-05)
- State v. Purdy, 491 N.W.2d 402 (N.D.1992) (discusses instructions on excuse; contextual framework)
- State v. Rasmussen, 524 N.W.2d 843 (N.D.1994) (imminent threat defense considerations under excuse)
- State v. Wanner, 2010 ND 121, 784 N.W.2d 143 (N.D.2010) (standard for sufficiency review; deferential; jury may convict on evidence juries reasonably draw)